Skip to main content

2018 | Buch

On the Penitentiary System in the United States and its Application to France

The Complete Text

insite
SUCHEN

Über dieses Buch

This book provides the first complete, literal English translation of Alexis de Tocqueville’s and Gustave de Beaumont’s first edition of On the Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Application to France. The work contains a critical comparison of two competing American penitentiary disciplines known as the Auburn and Philadelphia systems, an evaluation of whether American penitentiaries can successfully work in France, a detailed description of Houses of Refuge as the first juvenile detention centers, and an argument against penal colonization. The work provides valuable insights into understanding Tocqueville as a statesman, as well as a comparative look at civic engagement in early American and French penal reform movements. The Translator’s Introduction provides historical context for understanding Tocqueville’s work in French penal reform and the major themes of the report. The book thus fills a void in Tocquevillian studies and extrapolates the roots of American and French criminal justice systems in the nineteenth century.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter

Part I

Frontmatter
Chapter 1: History of the Penitentiary System
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont briefly provide the historical development of the idea of the penitentiary system in America. Penitentiaries were invented as an alternative to the death penalty and a means of reforming prisoners. Tocqueville and Beaumont argue that two different disciplines in the penitentiary system developed by trial and error and via competition between Pennsylvania and New York. Eventually, the successive emendations to prison discipline in Auburn, Pittsburg, Cherry Hill, Wethersfield, and SingSing penitentiaries led to two rival theories: absolute solitude with labor, and labor in common silence. The authors also review reasons why some states have not yet begun penal reform in America and praise the houses of refuge established in New York for juvenile delinquents.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Chapter 2
Abstract
Part I, Chapter 2 contains an expanded discussion of the fundamental principles of the penitentiary system in America, including its theoretical premises, its hierarchy of administration, the daily schedule of prisoners, and its financial costs. The authors argue that public opinion has a large influence over the direction of American penitentiaries, thus elevating the role of the superintendent and inspector. Tocqueville and Beaumont also compare American penitentiaries to French prison discipline, particularly on the presence of cafeterias and alcohol, the role of the contractor in the prison, and the utilization of a salary for prisoners. They include a brief discussion of the application of the penitentiary system to women and conclude with a critical analysis of the use of corporal punishment in prisons.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Chapter 3: Reform
Abstract
In Part I, Chapter 3, Tocqueville and Beaumont argue that penitentiaries have three possible means of reforming prisoners: they avoid further corrupting prisoners, they give habits of obedience and industry that make prisoners productive citizens, and they hold out the possibility of radical moral reformation due to the influence of religion. After drawing distinctions between each type of reformation and their probable achievement within the Philadelphia and Auburn system, Tocqueville and Beaumont provide statistics to prove whether penitentiaries actually reform prisoners. They argue that many outside causes (such as education, war, industry, and populations of freed slaves and immigrants) contribute to increasing crime, that recidivism cannot be proven in the years directly following a penitentiary’s establishment, and that France cannot be statistically compared to America.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Chapter 4: Financial Part
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont compare the costs to erect the Philadelphia, Auburn, Wethersfield, Baltimore, SingSing, and Blackwell Island penitentiaries and conclude that costs are managed better by avoiding decorative luxuries in architecture. The Auburn system is inherently more economical than the Philadelphia system. France would face different financial challenges when erecting penitentiaries, and should therefore consider using prisoner labor for reducing building costs. In terms of maintenance expenses, prison labor and good management of short contracts reduces the costs and increases the profits of penitentiaries.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville

Part II

Frontmatter
Chapter 1
Abstract
In Part II, Tocqueville and Beaumont begin their systematic comparison of French and American criminal justice systems by pointing out the major defects of French central prisons. They argue that French prisons cost more to the State than American penitentiaries because the discipline is less severe, the French give salaries to prisoners, and manufactured articles are sold with less profit on French markets. French prisons corrupt prisoners, rather than reforming them, due to free communication between prisoners and the misuse of their wages. Corruption contributes to high recidivism rates. Finally, there are higher mortality rates in French prisons than in American penitentiaries.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Chapter 2
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont show how France can successfully establish the American penitentiary system by overcoming three obstacles. First, the French can economize financial costs in building new prisons that accommodate solitary cells by avoiding architectural ornaments. Second, the French must overcome obstacles in mores: public opinion does not support the use of corporal punishment and cannot provide same kind of religious support to the moral system of the penitentiary. Finally, the French can reform their laws, which include infamous punishments, a variety of the modes of imprisonment (contrary to the simplicity of the American penitentiary, which exists without classification systems), and administrative centralization. Although the American penitentiary system will not have the same effects in France, it will be profitable when paired with agricultural colonies.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville

Part III: On Houses of Refuge

Frontmatter
Chapter 1
Abstract
Part III begins the authors’ brief analysis of houses of refuge as ancillary institutions to American penitentiaries. Tocqueville and Beaumont argue that houses of refuge are successful because they are founded by private, wealthy individuals and given State support. The institutions contain both juvenile delinquents and impoverished children sent there as a precautionary measure; they operate as both school and prison. Tocqueville and Beaumont also describe the daily life of children in houses of refuge, including the system of punishments and rewards used for discipline and the conditions of a child’s leaving the house. The authors compare the discipline of houses of refuge at Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Finally, the authors answer the question of whether houses of refuge truly reform children.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Chapter 2
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont conclude the main portion of their work by examining whether the American juvenile detention system, houses of refuge, could be used in France. In law, France has established houses of correction to contain offenders less than sixteen years old; in practice, these offenders are mixed in with older criminals. Tocqueville and Beaumont criticize the French system for corrupting young offenders and allowing parents to imprison their own children. They argue that France should adopt the discipline of American houses of refuge and give the director of houses of correction more administrative discretion over the duration of a child’s stay.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville

Part IV: Appendices

Frontmatter
Appendix: On Penal Colonies
Abstract
Although Tocqueville and Beaumont acknowledge the political advantage of penal colonies in deporting prisoners far from society, because it is appealing to the masses, they argue that the execution of penal colonies is problematic in execution and maintenance. It would be proportionally unjust for prisoners if used widely across many classifications of offenders. Penal colonies do not effect either reformation or fear of punishment as do penitentiaries. It is difficult to establish penal colonies due to climate and soil specifications, geographical distance from the mother-country, the dangers of native tribes, and the cost of preventing revolts from a population of criminals. Finally, France faces unique difficulties in founding a penal colony because it lacks adequate maritime resources and cannot risk war with England.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix: Alphabetical Notes
Abstract
The alphabetical notes expand upon ideas presented in the main text of On the Penitentiary System. They give information on the State laws establishing solitary confinement in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York; the bodily effects of solitary confinement upon prisoners; criticism of the Pittsburgh, SingSing, and Lamberton prisons; the Boston Prison Society; quotes from reports by Powers, Livingston, and Lynds; market competition between free workers and prison laborers; use of the treadmill in prison labor; problems with the contracting system; state laws enforcing the use of the whip as disciplinary means; the relationship between slavery and crime; the problem of tracking recidivism rates in America; French laws governing the distribution of the pécule; finally, the costs of the British penal colony in Australia.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 4: Agricultural Colonies
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont give a brief defense of the bases of the system of agricultural colonies as a penal method suitable for France. They argue that agricultural colonies help society to utilize its existing resources to enable the poor to become productive farmers. Holland and Belgium’s agricultural colonies are given as examples of administrative details in funding and profiting from relocated colonists. Tocqueville and Beaumont argue that their agricultural colonies sprung from the coordination between the government and private association.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 5: On Public Education
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont give a brief description of the American education system, divided into primary schools and higher education. Whereas colleges are typically subsidized and overseen by the State, primary schools are under the direction of local authorities. The authors use the State of New York to exemplify how public education is both a State and local initiative. After describing the SUNY system of colleges, they give details of the responsibilities of superintendents and commissioners in regulating primary schools in townships. Finally, the authors give some statistics on the financial costs of public education in America that are shared by the State, township, and parents. They conclude by giving an example from the laws of New Haven, CT which enforces parental involvement in children’s education.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 6: Pauperism in America
Abstract
The authors criticize American poverty laws for treating charity as a political institution. Alms-houses and poor-houses, the two main institutions intended to remedy poverty, do not operate on the principle that the State can only spend money on behalf of the poor which will later be repaid to it by their work. Tocqueville and Beaumont draw a distinction between poverty born from physical or material incapacity and poverty that results from moral insufficiency. The State ought to care for persons who cannot otherwise help themselves, but should beware of funding poverty that results from laziness or sloth. Finally, the authors give statistics from the State of New York to describe the execution of poor laws and its minimal effect in reducing poverty.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 7: Imprisonment for Debts in the United States
Abstract
The authors describe how American law has slowly shifted away from imprisoning debtors before an official judgement, a practice they inherited from England. Several states modified the law to allow the debtor to prove honesty, established a minimum to the debt before imprisonment, and excluded women from imprisonment for debt. Tocqueville and Beaumont especially condemn Pennsylvania debtor laws, which increase the total number of imprisoned unnecessarily.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 8: Imprisonment of Witnesses
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont condemn the American legal practice inherited from England of imprisoning witnesses until the court can hear their case. They provide two examples of how the practice unjustly punishes innocent persons, and argue that the law especially oppresses the poorer classes.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 9: Temperance Societies
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont give a brief description of the rise of the temperance movement in America, arguing that temperance societies represent the best practice of association to maintain liberty. They describe the hierarchical structure of the temperance movement, including the process of membership, nominated administrators over lower societies, and the central society responsible for publishing studies on the success of the movement. The authors conclude by giving some statistics on membership and the number of societies in each State of the Union.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 10: Inquiry into the Philadelphia Penitentiary
(October 1831)
Abstract
Tocqueville includes his notes from interviewing forty-five inmates of the Cherry Hill Penitentiary in Philadelphia, PA in October, 1831. The prison utilized the disciplinary method of solitary confinement in private cells with labor. Tocqueville asks prisoners how they felt about solitary confinement and the labor assigned to them, how often they interacted with guards or chaplains, what occupied them during the day, and their opinions on religion. He took careful notes on the race and nationality of the prisoner, crime they were convicted of, number of days they had been in the penitentiary, age, level of education, their families, and state of health. If the prisoner was a recidivist, Tocqueville noted their comparisons of the Walnut Street prison and Cherry Hill penitentiary.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 11: Conversation with Mr. Elam Lynds
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont record their interview with Mr. Elam Lynds, superintendent of the Auburn and then SingSing penitentiaries. Lynds describes how he initially began reforming the Auburn prison and argues that the discipline of labor in silence can be applied in any country, especially in France. Lynds supports the principle that a superintendent must be vested with unlimited authority in the prison, particularly over surveillance of the guards, prisoners, and contractors. Lynds believes that corporal punishments are necessary to enforce discipline; he supports prison labor outside the prison walls and updating older prisons with cells. Finally, Lynds argues that although complete moral reformation is impossible for mature prisoners, they can be made into good citizens.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 12: Excerpts
Abstract
Appendix No. 12 contains excerpts from a letter by Mr. Martin Welles, Judge at Wethersfield and former inspector of the Connecticut State Prison. In his letter to Tocqueville and Beaumont, Welles explains the reasons for the expense of building the Wethersfield prison, including imprecise proportions of strength between doors and openings, the vanity of the architect contraposed to the constant progress of society, and the substitution of vigilant surveillance for material force. Welles also provides statistics on the cost of materials for the Wethersfield prison, an estimate of expenses for a new prison, and calculations of potential profits that prison will make for the State.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 13: Regulations of the Connecticut Prison
Abstract
In Appendix No. 13, Tocqueville and Beaumont reproduce sections 1–9 of the Connecticut State Prison Regulations. The regulations specify the duties of the warden, deputy-warden, overseer, watchmen, and doctor. They include instructions for maintaining the prison property. Section seven includes general rules prohibiting any bribes or favors between employees and prisoners, governing the compensation for employees, prohibiting alcohol on the grounds of the establishment, limiting the use of corporal punishment to the warden, dictating that a Bible be placed in each cell, and distributing funds from visitors to the State. The regulations also include notes on obligations of the prisoners, rations, and sleep.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 13 Bis.: Regulations from Mr. Welles for the Boston House of Refuge
Abstract
The Boston House of Refuge regulations, provided by Mr. Welles, cover the rules for initiating a child into the House, the schedule for each day (including meals, school, labor, and religious services), types of punishments that can be given and how the children will be monitored, and a detailed description of the three-fold classification system that measures children according to their conduct and acts as an incentive for good behavior. Notably, the regulations give a large amount of responsibility to the individual children—the children are to form independent courts to judge their comrades’ behavior, participate in overseeing the discipline as elected monitors, and are responsible for reporting their own wrongs each day.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 14: Letter from Mr. Barrett, Chaplain of the Wethersfield Penitentiary
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont reproduce a letter received by them from Mr. Gerrish Barrett, chaplain of Wethersfield penitentiary, in October 1831. Barrett records the number of individuals sent to both Connecticut prisons from 1791–1831, classification of their crimes, and general statistics on the population of Connecticut in terms of race, education, orphanhood, citizenship of the State of Connecticut, age, and gender. Barrett describes the religious services held in the prison. Barrett is optimistic that moral reform occurs within the prison. Additionally, Barrett suggests that lack of education, abandonment by parents, and intemperance are the three greatest causes of crime. Finally, Barrett argues that the guards’ moral character is necessary for moral reform to occur in penitentiaries.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 15: Conversation with the Director of the Philadelphia House of Refuge
(Nov. 1831)
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont include their transcript of a brief interview with the Director of the Philadelphia House of Refuge, Edwin Young, performed in November 1831. Young notes that he can expect moral reform from juvenile delinquents until the age of fifteen or sixteen, it is hardest to correct thieving and prostitution, and that almost two-thirds of the children who left the house have behaved well. The children in the house of refuge enjoy reading and are fast learners; they are subject to punishments of whipping, solitary confinement, and reduction of food to bread and water. Young concludes by giving statistics on the initial costs to establish the house, annual maintenance expenses, profits from the children’s labor, and number of library books.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 16: Statistical Notes
Abstract
Appendix No. 16 consists of nine sections containing statistics, notes, and comments on various factors relating to the American criminal justice system. Included are annual reports of Auburn doctors (1826–1830); written excerpts from Dr. Bache of the Eastern State Penitentiary; statistics on individuals pardoned in New York from 1822–1831; Maryland’s penal laws for slaves; mortality differences between black persons, white persons, and slaves; Tocqueville’s and Beaumont’s calculations for the number of incarcerated persons in Pennsylvania in 1830; number of executions in Maryland from 1785–1832; number of those imprisoned in New York City prisons from 1821–1827; the influence of New York City on the crime numbers for the State as a whole; and the total number of sentences given by New York State Courts in 1830.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 17: Statistical Observations and Comparisons
Abstract
Appendix No. 17 consists of thirteen sections containing comparative statistical tables on crimes, deaths in penitentiaries, recidivism rates among the States, genders, races, ages, and nationalities in penitentiaries, proportions of individuals originating from the State where they committed the crime, pardons, and proportionality of prisoners to general populations. The statistics focus on Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 18: Some Points of Comparison Between France and America
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont statistically compare the French and American criminal justice systems along the following data points: crimes committed against persons, property, mores, and forgery (1830); mortality in prisons (1828–1830); recidivism (1828–1830); the number of women in prison (1825–1831); the number of foreigners in prison (1827–1831); ages of prisoners (1825–1831); and the proportion of prisoners to the general population (1827–1830). In comparison to America, France has fewer convictions for crimes against mores, decreasing crimes against persons, more deaths in prison, comparatively similar recidivism and age rates, almost double the number of imprisoned women, fewer foreigners in prison, and more individuals convicted for serious crimes.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Appendix No. 19: Financial Part
Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont conclude their work with a variety of statistics. They tabulate the maintenance expenses for the old Newgate (CT), Lamberton (NJ), and Walnut Street (PA) prisons. Next, Tocqueville and Beaumont give statistics on the cost of construction for the new Cherry Hill, Pittsburg, Washington, Charlestown, SingSing, Wethersfield, Baltimore, and Blackwell Island penitentiaries. They provide statistics on the expenses and revenue for the Auburn (1825–1831), Wethersfield (1828–1831), Baltimore (1828–1830), and SingSing (1828–1831) penitentiaries, divided according to whether they fall in the Auburn or Philadelphia system of discipline. They also give statistics on the cost of food, surveillance, clothing, and sleep at Auburn, SingSing, and Wethersfield. The work ends with a table showing the salaries of employees at Auburn, SingSing, Boston, and Wethersfield.
Gustave de Beaumont, Alexis de Tocqueville
Backmatter
Metadaten
Titel
On the Penitentiary System in the United States and its Application to France
verfasst von
Gustave de Beaumont
Alexis de Tocqueville
Copyright-Jahr
2018
Electronic ISBN
978-3-319-70799-0
Print ISBN
978-3-319-70798-3
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70799-0